You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I see that you feel Ni and Si are mutually exclusive functions. But I don't really think it would need to be difficult at all, if the person had some organic proclivity for using both. I could see that perhaps when engaged more with objects or the world, Si might be preferred; and when engaged in an abstract way, Ni might be preferred. I don't think it would be conscious at all, nor difficult.

Not necessarily mutual exclusive, no--just that one is clearly preferred to the other and used more effectively and more often.

Can you give some examples of people you believe to use Ni and Si in equal proportion and explain how you concluded that? I just don't really observe anyone like this in practice. Again I really don't mean this in an insulting way, but you might be confused as to what attitudes and values the function attitudes really represent--if you think you're seeing someone constantly switching easily and adeptly between Si and Ni, you're probably making specious associations between certain actions and functional dispositions.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

Do you feel the same about different attitudes of the same preference? Ni and Ne, for example? Or is that a more comfortable notion for you because it's the same preference? I see people all the time on here who have reported this, admittedly from those crappy functions tests. I use Ni and Ne. I take in patterns (Ne) here on type c. I notice who does what, whose posted where, who's coming, who's going, certain threads where certain people are, who's said what to whom, who's intimated things, who's flirting, etc. All very easily. I can tell I don't do it like an Ne dom does it, nor an Ne aux; but my point is that it doesn't hurt or cause me any confliction. I simply use it because I need to, Ni doesn't work for that stuff. And I've also learned I do it pretty well. Which would belie a simple shadow spot for my Ne.

Taking in patterns is not Ne. What you've just described I would consider more Fe--you're recognizing relationships between people and how they fulfill different roles:

Originally Posted by LTEW

Extraverted Feeling is the attitude of viewing everything in terms of what role it defines for people to play in regard to each other. When you say "How are you?" to someone, you are playing a role. It's a role that is intrinsically connected to other people's social roles; you can't play it by yourself. When the other person says, "Oh, not too bad. How about yourself?", they are playing out the complementary role. From an Fe perspective, by definition, every act is a declaration of what role you would like to play in the social setting.

Ne is more like this:

Originally Posted by LTEW

Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that what is manifest (apparent, observable) is a reflection of a greater reality. The dinosaur bone hints at the dinosaur, the cloud hints at the coming thunderstorm, the thunderstorm is a reflection of the rotation of the Earth within its atmosphere. Whatever you find, there is something more to find: a broader context, a whole, which will change your understanding of the part.

Extraverted Intuition (Ne) is the attitude that the unknown is filled with wonderful things. To make use of them, you must be flexible in your goals. If you try to set things up so that only something known to be good can happen, you close your eyes to the zillions of opportunities that you can't know or define in terms of what you know now. As more of the unknown becomes clear, the more it changes your understanding of the (currently) known.

To live, then, you need to continuously welcome the unknown, by always being ready to adjust in unanticipatable ways. What seems like a mistake is not a mistake when viewed in a larger pattern--and it's your job to find that larger pattern.

When I see people saying things like "oh well I use Ne and Ni equally well all the time!", I can't help but feel that they don't understand what those terms mean well enough to make that distinction. Their justification is almost invariably, "Well the function test said so!!!", which is all but meaningless.

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I suggest you check out some more of the literature on this topic. The function attitudes are pretty convoluted at times and quite difficult to discern in practice. They don't represent individual actions but prevailing attitudes that lead us toward all of our perceptions and judgments of reality. "I noticed a pattern" doesn't mean "I used Ne." What you described above doesn't really constitute Ne at all.

I don't think it's impossible for Ni users to use Ne and vice versa, just that it doesn't happen very often and takes a lot more effort than people think it does. It requires breaking out of your perceptual mold and looking at things from a standpoint that you're not used to. Most people who think they're adept at all the functions simply don't understand the function attitudes well enough to know the difference.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

I'm sorry. I just don't like the term shadow. Because it's defined as being used under duress, or scantily. And that's just not how I know for our non primary, non aux functions to be used, much of the time. I guess until I come up with a better term, shadow it will be.

Evidently you have some theoretical holes in your understanding of the functions which leads you to incorrectly associate certain actions with "uses" of certain functions. I'm not sure how to say that without sounding condescending, but I think it's the case. What books have you read on this topic?

The best thing I can advise you to do is look at why people do what they do instead of worrying about the surface action. Keep trying to reduce every action/belief in others further and further until you arrive at axiomatic principles the person considers fundamental to how life should be understood, interpreted and dealt with.

"I noticed a pattern in something" could be any function depending on context and the motivations and values of the person in question.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

I would respond as I did above. Theoretically, using current function theory as a guide, I could see drawing that conclusion. I just really don't see it in practice, honestly. Perhaps if the utilization concept was changed to "if and when it's needed" instead of "in stressful circumstances" it would be a better fit, and jive more with reality.

The problem with this is that you can navigate most life circumstances just fine without really depending on shadow functions. The reason for the "stressful circumstances" explanation is that using shadow functions actually requires you to break out of your preferred worldview and see things from a perspective that is unnatural and uncomfortable to you.

It's not just using some other skill--it's actually changing the way you interpret and deal with yourself and your surroundings, and that's not easily done.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

Where am I getting this? I've just made mental note of people's cognitive function tests on here, which I know suck, but it's all we really have; and I've noticed that people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference. Perhaps that is test bias. Who knows. I don't think it's necessarily a test foible, because I've seen it occur in people irl, haven't you? But I also have the Functions of Type book by the Hartzlers, and I've explored it in depth, testing and retesting, and contemplating people I know. It's got good descriptions of the functions, but the tests are barely comprehensive, with many only having 8 questions.

Please, if you want to move forward with this, just disregard tests entirely. This is a concept that lacks empirical evidence to the point that it can't be tested reliably at all. If you really want to know people's types, you have no choice but to study the functions and the value systems they most commonly associate with. Tests are not going to help you do anything more than get a very rough idea of which type categories to focus your personal studies on so that you can start figuring out which ones you identify most closely with. Tests are a sketchy and frequently inaccurate shortcut.

Tests are not all we really have. Your observation that most people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference is rooted in an error in your understanding of the different attitudes. (I don't mean any offense by this.)

To give you a real life example, look at the way TJs tend to disregard anything that can't be understood and tested according to universally applicable empirical standards. Te requires that everyone be able to apply the same test in the same way and get the same consistent, measurable result.

In order to "use Ti", the Te user has to temporarily abandon Te's need for measurable, empirical evidence and accept an impersonal judgment purely on its own internal merits. This is very hard to most TJs to do, and I must strongly disagree that most of them are good at it.

Originally Posted by Lenore Thomson, in reference to Te

"If you can't measure something, you can't predict its behavior, and hence it isn't real."

This is sharply in contrast with the way TPs tend to build and interpret logic systems. Any way of organizing and looking at information that helps our understanding of how to navigate situations as they unfold is useful, as long as its rules are internally consistent with themselves. Ti doesn't really mind if its rules and judgments can't be demonstrated empirically or validated by external means.

In order for the Ti user to "use Te", he has to temporarily abandon his personal, situational understanding of the dynamics of a situation and trust externally imposed standards over his own direct experiential understanding of how something is supposed to work. This is very hard to do and I disagree that most Ti users are good at it.

Originally Posted by Lenore Thomson, in reference to Ti

"As a right-brain function, Introverted Thinking is not conceptual and linear. It's body-based and wholistic. It operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically."

You see, using a different function is not just performing a different surface action. It's actually warping the attitude with which we approach interpreting and responding to ourselves and the world around us. That is a very big change. It's literally breaking your bubble about how to conceptualize reality.

If an Fi user wants to "use Fe", for instance, he has to set aside his own subjective values in favor of integrating into the social and cultural standards of whatever group he's part of. That's very hard for Fi-ers to do--it often feels like they're not being true to who they really are. It takes some serious maturity and concern for the perspectives of others--it's not something that happens all the time.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

I am sketchy on this myself. Does a person inherit a preference or a function? I would guess a preference, then that preference would meld to the attitude it needed to acquire to fall into the overall personality make-up. So, if a person had N parents, I would guess that person to have better usage of Ni and Ne, simply because he has more N and less S. If a person inherits N/S, then I would guess they'd both convert to the dominant attitude and share tasks as I stated in the first paragraph. I realize this is far-fetched. It is just my nature to reach, but it also just makes a lot of sense to me, as if it were true. (i don't know if that is a good thing, or bad thing).

You still seem to be associating function use with particular actions. e.g., I saw a pattern so I must have used Ne, or I made an impersonal decision so I must have used Ti, etc...the functions don't represent singular actions. They represent the most fundamental starting points from which people build their entire conceptions of reality.

You might very well be good at some individual skill that many Ne users are good at, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily using Ne to do it. "Using Ne" doesn't just mean "performing some action that Ne people tend to be good at"; it implies approaching and understanding reality from a certain perspective.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

Well, I use Ne as I've stated, as do maaannny others, I'm sure; and I doubt it's as apocolyptic as you think.

Again I will suggest that you read more material on what the function attitudes actually imply about the most fundamental ways people conceptualize reality. Based on your earlier description of your "Ne use", you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what "Ne use" actually is.

I'm not saying you never use Ne, just that it's not nearly as natural or commonplace as you think. Your criticisms that the current functional theories are inadequate are based largely in gaps in your understanding of the nature of cognitive functions themselves.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

I know this is true for me with Te. School, college, more school, homeschooling, mothering, etc., have forced me to become very good with Te. I'm not 'supposed' to be inherently good at Te, according to function theory.

Getting things done doesn't constitute Te use. Going to school and mothering don't force you to be good at Te. These tasks can be accomplished just as well from the perspectives of lots of other functional attitudes (although the most closely related one is Fe, which is probably the case for you.)

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

However, interestingly (for myself), I distinctely remember when I began using Ne and it was in my childhood/teenage years. I've considered that this meant, to fit it into neat function theory, that I'm infp, and that it was the normal development time for my Ne. But I'm no infp. I remember even telling someone about how I loved to look for patterns in things, and see what was missing in patterns in things, and how asymmetry drove me crazy. Eric B told me before this might have been a manifestation of developing Ti. But it sounds an awful lot like Ne to me. I see children I know who do this too. I don't think it's as rare as we think.

Finding patterns =/= using Ne.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

Why do you think that it's better to be less threatening to the dom/aux? I would intuit that it would be better to be closer to his preferred way of doing something. You know what I'm going to say. I'm going to say that it would depend on what he inherently more of, N/N or N/S. If it's the N/N, it would be the former, N/S, the latter, although I don't really like the concept of 'shadow' as you know.

I think your issue with the shadow thing is rooted in the way you're conceptualizing functions as singular, particular actions instead of overarching, widely encompassing attitudes. You seem to think, "Ne is finding patterns, and I find patterns, so I must use Ne when I do that!", but it's a lot more complicated than that.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

My specific example is that my INTJ does the latter. He's better at Si and Fe, than Ti and Ne (i think Ne anyway). But I've seen your proposition work too. It's just all a crapshoot.

What exactly does being "good at" a function mean? It doesn't mean that you're good at tasks people strong in that function are usually good at; it means the way that function leads you to conceptualize reality comprises a larger part of your total worldview than other functional attitudes.

I think you're taking issue with being told your type isn't good at Ne or Te or whatever because you think you're being told you can't find patterns or plan and organize or whatever other common actions you associate with those functions. But those functions represent attitudes about how to consider yourself and your relationship to reality, not particular actions.

When someone says something on the forum, for instance, and others say, "Wow that was totally Si" or whatnot, they're not saying "The act itself of saying that was use of Si"; they're saying, "I believe the value that motivated you to say/do that was rooted in the worldview represented by Si." That's a BIG difference.

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

It would be nice to have some decent tests though, so people can know more what functions they use well, which ones need work, and to correlate it all in to archetypes, possibly refining them.

It would be nice to have neat little 20-minute questionnaires that solve the problem of identity for you; unfortunately that's never really going to happen because the tests can't get enough in-depth information to say much of anything meaningful. You cannot use tests to determine which of your functions are strong or weak or need improvement.

Think of it this way--imagine you've never heard any music and you want to know what kind of music you would like. Somebody points you to a 70-question internet quiz that will ask you about the types of sounds you find pleasing and then tell you which kind of music is your favorite. This will probably give you a decent starting point for your personal study of music, but does it actually necessitate that, once you go and listen to a lot of different kinds of music, your favorite will be the one the test told you? No, it doesn't, because there's no shortcut to figuring out what kind of music really suits you without listening to a lot of different music and figuring it out through direct experience and gradually developing a working understanding of the relationships between different approaches to music and how they relate to you. The same applies to understanding different approaches to cognition.

The only way to do this is to identify people who are heavily influenced by those functional attitudes and talk to them about the ways they understand themselves and their environments and try to discover how they differ from yours. What basic assumptions about the nature of life, the universe and everything does this person make that lead him to think and behave the way he does, and what can you learn from them?

Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry

Yeah, hard to know. I've gotten to where I like to find out a person's parents' types because I find the inheritence factor fascinating and just really fun. Like you have all these preferences between two people and it really does pan out that kids get a mix of the parents, as well as grandparents, etc., weaker the farther you go back.

It's interesting to see how the values of one's parents influence his own. Sometimes you'll find a belief that seems out of place in that person's value system, and find that it's been ingrained by upbringing...I tend to think personal circumstances play a bigger part than nature in the determining of type, but that doesn't mean people will tend to grow up like their parents. Often kids will actively rebel against their parents' beliefs and come out quite different...just depends on a lot of different factors.

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Ne-dom just passing by to make a short derail of INTP-discussion (sorry ):

Afrodite, I keep getting a vibe that you are more S than N. Maybe ISFJ?

I'm ignorant about your true personality of course, and probably also about the nuances of function analysis, so caveats all around, but I see a lot of Si-Fe motivations in your self-descriptions: identifying systems in terms of them 'missing' some elements or being asymmetrical (aka 'not as they should be'), having great interpersonal awareness, plus you seem highly sensual, nurturing and like you enjoy being in charge of nest-making with your ISTJ (ISTJ and ISFJ appear to be a match made in heaven...). On TypoC you may also be entertaining your relief-function when discussing in Ti. Many of us +30's seem to let the tertiary out to play here.

Not necessarily mutual exclusive, no--just that one is clearly preferred to the other and used more effectively and more often.

Can you give some examples of people you believe to use Ni and Si in equal proportion and explain how you concluded that? I just don't really observe anyone like this in practice. Again I really don't mean this in an insulting way, but you might be confused as to what attitudes and values the function attitudes really represent--if you think you're seeing someone constantly switching easily and adeptly between Si and Ni, you're probably making specious associations between certain actions and functional dispositions.

I never said EQUAL proportion. I don't believe that. And, yeah, I could give some specific examples of some on this forum, but I won't now.

Taking in patterns is not Ne. What you've just described I would consider more Fe--you're recognizing relationships between people and how they fulfill different roles:

Ne is more like this:

When I see people saying things like "oh well I use Ne and Ni equally well all the time!", I can't help but feel that they don't understand what those terms mean well enough to make that distinction. Their justification is almost invariably, "Well the function test said so!!!", which is all but meaningless.

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I suggest you check out some more of the literature on this topic. The function attitudes are pretty convoluted at times and quite difficult to discern in practice. They don't represent individual actions but prevailing attitudes that lead us toward all of our perceptions and judgments of reality. "I noticed a pattern" doesn't mean "I used Ne." What you described above doesn't really constitute Ne at all.

I don't think it's impossible for Ni users to use Ne and vice versa, just that it doesn't happen very often and takes a lot more effort than people think it does. It requires breaking out of your perceptual mold and looking at things from a standpoint that you're not used to. Most people who think they're adept at all the functions simply don't understand the function attitudes well enough to know the difference.

Evidently you have some theoretical holes in your understanding of the functions which leads you to incorrectly associate certain actions with "uses" of certain functions. I'm not sure how to say that without sounding condescending, but I think it's the case. What books have you read on this topic?

The best thing I can advise you to do is look at why people do what they do instead of worrying about the surface action. Keep trying to reduce every action/belief in others further and further until you arrive at axiomatic principles the person considers fundamental to how life should be understood, interpreted and dealt with.

"I noticed a pattern in something" could be any function depending on context and the motivations and values of the person in question.

The problem with this is that you can navigate most life circumstances just fine without really depending on shadow functions. The reason for the "stressful circumstances" explanation is that using shadow functions actually requires you to break out of your preferred worldview and see things from a perspective that is unnatural and uncomfortable to you.

It's not just using some other skill--it's actually changing the way you interpret and deal with yourself and your surroundings, and that's not easily done.

Please, if you want to move forward with this, just disregard tests entirely. This is a concept that lacks empirical evidence to the point that it can't be tested reliably at all. If you really want to know people's types, you have no choice but to study the functions and the value systems they most commonly associate with. Tests are not going to help you do anything more than get a very rough idea of which type categories to focus your personal studies on so that you can start figuring out which ones you identify most closely with. Tests are a sketchy and frequently inaccurate shortcut.

Tests are not all we really have. Your observation that most people tend to be very good at both attitudes of the same preference is rooted in an error in your understanding of the different attitudes. (I don't mean any offense by this.)

To give you a real life example, look at the way TJs tend to disregard anything that can't be understood and tested according to universally applicable empirical standards. Te requires that everyone be able to apply the same test in the same way and get the same consistent, measurable result.

In order to "use Ti", the Te user has to temporarily abandon Te's need for measurable, empirical evidence and accept an impersonal judgment purely on its own internal merits. This is very hard to most TJs to do, and I must strongly disagree that most of them are good at it.

This is sharply in contrast with the way TPs tend to build and interpret logic systems. Any way of organizing and looking at information that helps our understanding of how to navigate situations as they unfold is useful, as long as its rules are internally consistent with themselves. Ti doesn't really mind if its rules and judgments can't be demonstrated empirically or validated by external means.

In order for the Ti user to "use Te", he has to temporarily abandon his personal, situational understanding of the dynamics of a situation and trust externally imposed standards over his own direct experiential understanding of how something is supposed to work. This is very hard to do and I disagree that most Ti users are good at it.

You see, using a different function is not just performing a different surface action. It's actually warping the attitude with which we approach interpreting and responding to ourselves and the world around us. That is a very big change. It's literally breaking your bubble about how to conceptualize reality.

If an Fi user wants to "use Fe", for instance, he has to set aside his own subjective values in favor of integrating into the social and cultural standards of whatever group he's part of. That's very hard for Fi-ers to do--it often feels like they're not being true to who they really are. It takes some serious maturity and concern for the perspectives of others--it's not something that happens all the time.

You still seem to be associating function use with particular actions. e.g., I saw a pattern so I must have used Ne, or I made an impersonal decision so I must have used Ti, etc...the functions don't represent singular actions. They represent the most fundamental starting points from which people build their entire conceptions of reality.

You might very well be good at some individual skill that many Ne users are good at, but that doesn't mean you're necessarily using Ne to do it. "Using Ne" doesn't just mean "performing some action that Ne people tend to be good at"; it implies approaching and understanding reality from a certain perspective.

Again I will suggest that you read more material on what the function attitudes actually imply about the most fundamental ways people conceptualize reality. Based on your earlier description of your "Ne use", you don't seem to have a firm grasp on what "Ne use" actually is.

I'm not saying you never use Ne, just that it's not nearly as natural or commonplace as you think. Your criticisms that the current functional theories are inadequate are based largely in gaps in your understanding of the nature of cognitive functions themselves.

Getting things done doesn't constitute Te use. Going to school and mothering don't force you to be good at Te. These tasks can be accomplished just as well from the perspectives of lots of other functional attitudes (although the most closely related one is Fe, which is probably the case for you.)

Finding patterns =/= using Ne.

I think your issue with the shadow thing is rooted in the way you're conceptualizing functions as singular, particular actions instead of overarching, widely encompassing attitudes. You seem to think, "Ne is finding patterns, and I find patterns, so I must use Ne when I do that!", but it's a lot more complicated than that.

What exactly does being "good at" a function mean? It doesn't mean that you're good at tasks people strong in that function are usually good at; it means the way that function leads you to conceptualize reality comprises a larger part of your total worldview than other functional attitudes.

I think you're taking issue with being told your type isn't good at Ne or Te or whatever because you think you're being told you can't find patterns or plan and organize or whatever other common actions you associate with those functions. But those functions represent attitudes about how to consider yourself and your relationship to reality, not particular actions.

When someone says something on the forum, for instance, and others say, "Wow that was totally Si" or whatnot, they're not saying "The act itself of saying that was use of Si"; they're saying, "I believe the value that motivated you to say/do that was rooted in the worldview represented by Si." That's a BIG difference.

It would be nice to have neat little 20-minute questionnaires that solve the problem of identity for you; unfortunately that's never really going to happen because the tests can't get enough in-depth information to say much of anything meaningful. You cannot use tests to determine which of your functions are strong or weak or need improvement.

Think of it this way--imagine you've never heard any music and you want to know what kind of music you would like. Somebody points you to a 70-question internet quiz that will ask you about the types of sounds you find pleasing and then tell you which kind of music is your favorite. This will probably give you a decent starting point for your personal study of music, but does it actually necessitate that, once you go and listen to a lot of different kinds of music, your favorite will be the one the test told you? No, it doesn't, because there's no shortcut to figuring out what kind of music really suits you without listening to a lot of different music and figuring it out through direct experience and gradually developing a working understanding of the relationships between different approaches to music and how they relate to you. The same applies to understanding different approaches to cognition.

The only way to do this is to identify people who are heavily influenced by those functional attitudes and talk to them about the ways they understand themselves and their environments and try to discover how they differ from yours. What basic assumptions about the nature of life, the universe and everything does this person make that lead him to think and behave the way he does, and what can you learn from them?

I pretty much disagree with everything you say here, except for the condescending part. We just don't see the same things. You telling me to read more or telling me I don't understand something is condescening, fyi. Who knows who is right?

Originally Posted by Heart&Brain

Ne-dom just passing by to make a short derail of INTP-discussion (sorry ):

Afrodite, I keep getting a vibe that you are more S than N. Maybe ISFJ?

I'm ignorant about your true personality of course, and probably also about the nuances of function analysis, so caveats all around, but I see a lot of Si-Fe motivations in your self-descriptions: identifying systems in terms of them 'missing' some elements or being asymmetrical (aka 'not as they should be'), having great interpersonal awareness, plus you seem highly sensual, nurturing and like you enjoy being in charge of nest-making with your ISTJ (ISTJ and ISFJ appear to be a match made in heaven...). On TypoC you may also be entertaining your relief-function when discussing in Ti. Many of us +30's seem to let the tertiary out to play here.

Would ISFJ be totally impossible in your eyes?

Well, thank you. I know many isfjs and, you are right. They can make awesome mothers. The difference I've noticed in some that I'm close to is that they are more likely to enforce their agenda on their children in more of an you-need-to-do-things-this-way-because-that-is-the-best/right-way-to-have-integrity-in-our-world-way. Infj mothers are controlling in our own ways, but more in an Fe way, like we-have-to-live-together-so-this-is-how-it-will-best-work way.

Our MBTI label is just a best fit deal. It's my way of giving y'all an idea of who I am by way of being an Ni/Fe dom/aux and preferring to use N and F over T and S. If you don't see that, then that's fine. Obviously, I know myself better than you do, and have thought a lot about it, so I probably won't be changing it.

I think it's interesting the conclusions you drew about Si and stuff. Hmm. I am better at Si than Se, yet I am very sensual. I live with an ISTP, not ISTJ (unless you are referring to my daughter, and she and I are like oil and water, and always have been). As for the rest, well, it just doesn't jive with me.

Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
4w5 5w4 1w9

~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
Life Path 11

The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

It has probably been said before; but that is the way that socionics views it. The INTJs in MBTI are often INTps in socionics as the leading function is perceptive; not judging. MBTI views it as the 'visible' function (Te) as judging. or something like that...

Our MBTI label is just a best fit deal. It's my way of giving y'all an idea of who I am by way of being an Ni/Fe dom/aux and preferring to use N and F over T and S. If you don't see that, then that's fine. Obviously, I know myself better than you do, and have thought a lot about it, so I probably won't be changing it.

I think it's interesting the conclusions you drew about Si and stuff. Hmm. I am better at Si than Se, yet I am very sensual. I live with an ISTP, not ISTJ (unless you are referring to my daughter, and she and I are like oil and water, and always have been). As for the rest, well, it just doesn't jive with me.

I pretty much disagree with everything you say here, except for the condescending part. We just don't see the same things. You telling me to read more or telling me I don't understand something is condescening, fyi. Who knows who is right?

Well, my interpretation of functions as underlying attitudes rather than specific actions is based primarily on Jung and Thomson.

I'm afraid I don't know how to make this point without sounding condescending, and for that I'm sorry. Your entire conception of the nature of functions is out of sync with all of the popular authors on this topic--that's where the "stressful circumstances" explanation of shadow functions comes from.

It's difficult to learn to harness them because using them doesn't just mean performing a different action; it means temporarily changing the basic attitude with which you conceptualize a type of cognition. That's why it's so hard.

If using a different function were as simple as performing a different task, why would all of the primary typology authors describe it as such a difficult/unusual process? Because functions are attitudes, not actions. It's easy to change your actions; it's not so easy to change your attitude.

What source are you using for your interpretation of functions as single actions?

If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

Well, my interpretation of functions as underlying attitudes rather than specific actions is based primarily on Jung and Thomson.

I'm afraid I don't know how to make this point without sounding condescending, and for that I'm sorry. Your entire conception of the nature of functions is out of sync with all of the popular authors on this topic--that's where the "stressful circumstances" explanation of shadow functions comes from.

I think they aren't looking at it the right way. I think they are building fledgling theories on faulty foundations. I think they are missing pertinent data.

It's difficult to learn to harness them because using them doesn't just mean performing a different action; it means temporarily changing the basic attitude with which you conceptualize a type of cognition. That's why it's so hard.

If using a different function were as simple as performing a different task, why would all of the primary typology authors describe it as such a difficult/unusual process? Because functions are attitudes, not actions. It's easy to change your actions; it's not so easy to change your attitude.

Definition of attitude:

An attitude is a hypothetical construct that represents an individual's degree of like or dislike for an item. Attitudes are generally positive or negative views of a person, place, thing, or event-- this is often referred to as the attitude object. People can also be conflicted or ambivalent toward an object, meaning that they simultaneously possess both positive and negative attitudes toward the item in question.Attitudes are judgments. They develop on the ABC model (affect, behavior, and cognition). The affective response is an emotional response that expresses an individual's degree of preference for an entity. The behavioral intention is a verbal indication or typical behavioral tendency of an individual. The cognitive response is a cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual's beliefs about the object. Most attitudes are the result of either direct experience or observational learning from the environment.

I think it's subconsciously, not consciously done. I think the brain CAN handle it, and I don't believe it's an uncomforable judgmental process like you do.

What source are you using for your interpretation of functions as single actions?

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
4w5 5w4 1w9

~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
Life Path 11

The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

There is no real known gene for a particular traits... and the real consensus is that an organism and its behavior is an interactive process between a variety of factors (genetics, physiology, environment, upbringing, social pressures, etc.)

There is some correlation between neural patterns and introversion/extroversion (it seems based on neural stimulation/wiring, which results from genetics and how the neural system develops early on)... but what you seem to be asking for seems far more complicated than even a "gay gene" concept... which has never been shown to exist. There have been isolation of some combinations for a handful of traits, but it's hard for it to be descriptive except in the grossest sense (i.e., "these people who show <this behavior> have a larger brain structure or gene combo than these other people who do not as often show that pattern of behavior")... but it's very very hard to tell what is derived directly from something else. There are just way too many factors involved.

These personality theories seem to be done in the reverse. Behavior is analyzed, theories are made based on the behaviors, then people try to tie it back to biology in some way... which seems to have perils of its own.

I appreciate your posts, Jennifer. I got busy answering Sim and forgot about yours. I wasn't necessarily saying we have to trace the genes responsible for personality traits, just acknowledge the general idea that genes ARE responsible for our personality to a large degree; Nature. Then nurture has something to do with it as well. I am not aware if any personality guru has stated that, or studied that at all. Are you? I don't know about tying back to biology. I believe it stems from biology, but the only way we can get close to testing that now (unless there is some genetic tests I don't know about) is to study behavior as it relates to cognitive functions.

Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
4w5 5w4 1w9

~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
Life Path 11

The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39